What? Is that English? Can we get an interpreter here, please? Jack sounds more like Jackie Chan from the movie Rush Hour.

Jack, you have yet to answer my question to you. Why did you question the credibility of an actual scholar but not of the "Harvard House" guy? The longer you ignore this question, the more you expose yourself as a subjective, blind fool.

Originally posted by Jack

I challange you to put your words into action.

Oooh, a challenge from Jack! Let's see your "challenge".

Originally posted by Jack

Provide a Surah from each of the four Qur'ans that Uthman burned,

Oh for crying out load!!! How dumb are you?

You still have not realized your own st**idity and ignorance! Do you know how to read, Jack? Or maybe its not your reading but your comprehension skills that is the problem. What "four Qur'ans" are you talking about? The very fact that you are still clinging to the now refuted arguments raised by the pseudo-scholar at "Harvard House" shows that you have shut down your reason in preference for your blind faith.

Originally posted by Jack

And stop your low-life disrespect toward others. Cough up the evidence, buddy. Let's have it out... on the table!

Oooh, Jack is getting upset! Who is the "low-life" here? The guy who has presented scholarly evidence or the fool who has brought nothing but his own false claims and yet demands "evidence"?

Originally posted by Jack

God bless you now and always, my friend, in all you say and do and may the love of God fill your life and soul, Amen.

You can take your "well-wishes" and smoke them, papa bear. I don't need someone like you to offer these pseudo-prayers for me.

Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

So, why change God's revelations in seven dialects if they were all
VALID? Because unless the readings themselves were not exactly the same
there would be no need to change them into one dialect.

You still don't understand the difference between "reading" (qira'at) and "dialect" (harf; plural: ahruf). Uthman still used the seven dialects but he allowed only one reading style in the master copy. And as I already explained, the reason for standardizing the Qur'an was to avoid any disagreements among ignorant Muslims. Had there been no such disagreements, Uthman would have had no reason to order a single reading.

Furthermore, I gave you archaeological evidence to support my claim that the Qur'an has been preserved. Let me just re-paste it here:

1. Every manuscript in existence today is the same as any other. There
are no differences. Furthermore, there are numerous 1st century AH
(after Hijra) manuscripts and they are all the same:

The
remarkable thing about this manuscript is that scholars believe it is
quite possible that it was written no less than 15 years after the
Prophet's death, which would put it even before Uthman's decree! Here
is what the article states:

"On this basis, therefore, they suggest that it is highly probable that
this manuscript was produced no more than 15 years after the death of
Muhammad (d. June, 632 CE).[22]They conclude that the scriptio inferior text belonged to the codex of a companion of Prophet Muhammad, whilst the scriptio superior text belongs to the ʿUthmānic tradition, and using stemmatics, it is shown as the prototype to be identified with the Prophet."

This also shows that Uthman's standard text was already in use which is why it was unanimously accepted by the Companions.

3.
The Qur'an has been memorized by millions of people throughout Islamic
history. No other book has been memorized from its very inception, word
for word.

4. There is no disagreement among the two main
sects in Islam, Sunni and Shia. This is despite the fact that Uthman
and the the other Sunni Caliphs are reviled by the Shia for being
usurpers to what they believe was Ali's throne. Yet even the Shia
accept that the Qur'an has been handled well by the Sunni Caliphs.

These
proofs show without a doubt that the Qur'an has been preserved
perfectly. The only "evidence" the other side can bring is melodramatic
theories and assumptions. As I asked before about who carries more
weight, the scholars or the newbies (such as the "Illustrious Trio"), I
ask the same here. Which carries more weight? The archaeological and
historical evidence or the baseless and unprovable conspiracy theories?
As with the first question, the second question is also rhetorical as
the answer is obvious.

Originally posted by Larry

But, according to you, the Qur'an was NOT revealed in only one dialect, that of the Quryash.

The dialect of the Quraysh was one of the seven dialects and it was also the dialect of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), so it made sense to choose that dialect if there were any disagreements and no consensus could be reached. Otherwise, the other dialects were also incorporated into the text.

Originally posted by Larry

All these doubts, rewritings and post-revelation changes in reading
style are not exactly the definition of a PURE AND HOLY BOOK UNCHANGED
FROM THE WAY IT WAS REVEALED TO MUHAMMAD BY GOD THROUGH THE ANGEL
GABRIEL.

What "rewritings" or "pose-revelation changes"? You think you are clever for using such terminology but you have no evidence for any of it. They are just empty words.

And who are you to say what is "pure". The scholars of Islam are united in their acceptance of the Qur'an and even non-Muslim scholars feel the same way. Who are you? This again brings me to the ultimate question:

Which side carries more weight? The side of academia and scholarship or the side of the "Illustrious Trio"? Can someone answer this question? I don't want to answer it myself because it would be embarrassing.

Originally posted by Larry

And, why would it be neccessary to destroy all the Qur'ans that differed
in writing style since they were all VALID? Because they read
differently in each case?

Ugh. This has already been explained like 10 times. The reason was to avoid any future disagreements, unnecessary though they were. It was a practical solution to a real-world problem.

Originally posted by Larry

Like I said, all this is a little too slick. Language is good, merely
different dialects, dialects changed because they might cause confusion
by seven variant readings, Change the seven dialectical styles into only
one of those dialects, that of the Quraysh, and then burn all Qur'ans
that differed, for any reason, from Uthman's standardized and authorized
Qur'an.

What you say is irrelevant because not only are you not a scholar, you also don't even understand (or don't want to understand) the basics. Of course the whole thing seems "slick" to you. You have a priori beliefs which you are not willing to question because to do so would be to admit you were wrong.

Once you learn the difference between "reading" and "dialect", you will have taken the first step towards comprehension. Also, bring some actual evidence from scholarly sources to support your claims rather than your own "feelings".

Originally posted by Larry

Like I said before, it is of no concern to me because I do not
believe that the Qur'an is from God at all, at least not from the God
that I worship, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, all Jewish
Patriarchs named in the Torah or Old Testament millenia before Muhammad
even existed.

This is off-topic but it also drives home my previous point which is that you, a non-believer, has no authority to question how Muslims chose (through consensus) to write the Qur'an. It's not your business to do so. The Muslims knew what they were doing and they also knew that it was the most practical thing to do. No one changed anything. All that was done was to make one official copy the standard for the entire Muslim world.

Originally posted by Larry

It always amazes me that Islam basically hijacked the Jewish (and
Christian) religion, changed it, and then accused the Jews and
Christians of "corrupting" the Word of God. In fact, in more than one
place in the Qur'an, God calls the Children of Israel his "chosen"
people. God makes the same statement exactly in the Old Testament more
than a thousand years before Muhammad and Islam.

Again, off-topic. We can discuss it if you want, but it would require a separate thread.

Originally posted by Larry

Between the Old Testament, New Testament and the Qur'an, the Qur'an is
the only book that differs in significant and profound detail from the
Old and New Testaments.

I disagree but again, off-topic. Actually, I believe that the Tanakh has more in common with the Qur'an than with the NT. The very fact that both the Tanakh and the Qur'an contain nothing even remotely resembling the concept of the trinity is proof of this. We can discuss this, but not here. The topic here is the Qur'an's alleged alteration, which so far, neither you, Jack or your "source" (the "Harvard House" guy) have been able to prove.

Originally posted by Larry

I think this subject is about beaten to death and no one is going to
change their views. I really don't want to go on and on with this
endless argument.

Of course! This is your trademark way of closing a discussion.

And of course, as I have made it clear before, I don't care if people like you don't change their minds. I do this for the people who use their reason and who actually want to learn.

Originally posted by Larry

Believe whatever you want to believe.

As I have told you already...

And so I ask again to all members of this forum:

Does anyone have any actual evidence that the Qur'an has been altered? People with unproven assumptions and theories need not apply.

Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

"The scholars of Islam are UNITED in their acceptance of the Qur'an and even non-Muslim scholars feel the same way."

LOL!

Larry

Ah, one word responses...the tell-tale signs of a person with nothing intelligent left to say.

Since after repeated requests, there has been no evidence presented to support the idea that the Qur'an has been altered, I think we can move on to another topic. I have an idea so I will open a new thread.

Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

I challanged you to, "Provide a Surah from each of the four Qur'ans that Uthman burned," the same Surah that you claim to be simply a different reading in each, to prove that they said the same things.

Your response, "Oh for crying out load!!! How dumb are you?" which is your intelligent way of admitting that you cannot prove your assertion that the different Qur'ans said basically the same thing, just in different dialects. Neither you, nor your so-called Scholars who have studied up on the issue, can prove it because Uthman destroyed the evidence.

And your disrespect is clearly a way of trying to scare Larry and I into running away rather than pressing on with what common sence tells us is the truth. Sorry, IslamisPeace, but you are loosing this little argument very badly. You have no actual evidence. All you have is what others have said who also have no evidence. All you and the scholars you quote have is assumption, which we all know is a fancy word for guesswork. You are not convincing anyone, IslamisPeace, and your rudeness is proof that you know you that you are failing to convince anyone.

Your ranting and raving about "pseudo-scholars" at Harvard House ignores the fact that what is in the article is also included in many other sources, such as a book I have at home, and in many other articles on the internet, as well as many encyclopedias. You speak about my "st**idity and ignorance," then you turn around and ask what 4 Qur'ans Larry and I are talking about. All you have to do is read the posts we wrote that inspired you to begin this string of posts, and there we name the 4 Qur'ans by their authors, and you even discuss them. Now here your question, "What "four Qur'ans" are you talking about?" truly shows your (what words did you use) "st**idity and ignorance."

Say what you will about my post closings, but I will use them no matter what you say, as I use them for everyone. They contain no sarcasm, as I dispize sarcasm, no double meaning, as I always say very plainly what I mean. So like it or lump it,

"Since after repeated requests, there has been no evidence presented to support the idea that the Qur'an has been altered, I think we can move on to another topic."

Typical of you, stating your "victory" in this topic and thinking that everyone agrees with your less than stellar, self-serving announcement. Then you add that "we" should move on to "another topic" of your choosing.

You said, "We, the Muslims can point to the two copies of the Quran present with us today in Museums, written fourteen hundred years ago be the same as what every Muslim have today in their homes. Too bad Christians cannot make such a claim about their book."

I am hereby going on record to make such a claim. We, the Christians, can point to the Holy Bible and know that it is the same as that written by the hand of its authors 2000+ years ago. Modern scholars have verified at least 99% of all words in it as authentic, and are working on the remaining 1% as we speak. Our four Gospels have not been compiled and the orriginals burned. We have most exactly the orriginal words of the authors who were eye witnesses and companions of Jesus, as well as those who gathered up the stories of other eye witnesses. Can Islam make such a claim?

May Allah bless you,

Jack Catholic

Jack,
can you point to a single copy of the Bible, let us say same fourteen hundred years old anywhere is the world that is word for word same as you and I have in our hands today? I am waiting for your response!
Hasan

39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"

The Jews have a copy of the Book of Isaiah from the Dead Sea Scrolls that was written about 200 B.C. (although the original writing of Isaiah was done centuries earlier). That scroll of Isaiah is identical to the one in the Torah used by Jews to this day. That was 2,200 years ago, eight hundred years before the Qur'an even existed. Does that mean that the "book" of Judaism is superior to the Qur'an?
Christianity comes directly out of the Jewish Old Testament and their "book" becomes the New Testament, which is also older than Islam and the Qur'an. But we Christians don't have the need for an "unchanged" book to have faith in Jesus Christ. The New Testament was written in Aramaic and Ancient Greek, which few Christians, or even scholars, can read so we have translations. The New Testament continues and fulfills the prophecies made in the Old Testament.
The Qur'an makes no specific prophecies unlike the many made in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New Testament, as in the case of Isaiah 53, etc. The Old Testament says that the proof of a prophet and his prophecy is whether it actually comes to fulfillment or not. There are many examples of ancient prophecies being fulfilled exactly in both the Old and New Testaments. This is not true of the Qur'an or Muhammad.
As I said before, I find it somewhat amusing that Muhammad and Islam basically hijacked a considerable portion of both the Old and New Testament, such as the Patriarchs, prophets, persons, stories, etc., then turns around and accuses the Jews and Christians of "corrupting" their own religions! The Qur'an contains errors such as when it confuses one person for another, as in the case where it says that Zachariah's wife (the mother of John the Baptist) was named Mary, when in actuality her name was Elizabeth.
The Qur'an is written in Arabic, which a large number of Muslims worldwide cannot read or write. So they use translations just as the Jews and Christians do. Does this make them unsatisfactory or "ignorant" Muslims since they can't read the Qur'an in it's original, unchanging Arabic?
As a Christian it does not bother me if the Holy Bible is not word-for-word exactly as written because I don't read Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic. No book written by the hands of men, even under divine inspiration, is without flaw, including the Qur'an.
In fact, there is a discernable difference in the style of writing between the early surahs of the Qur'an written in Mecca and the ones that were written later when he was residing in Medina. These later surahs are verbose and repetitive unlike his earlier ones.
I don't put my faith in a book, I put my faith in the message contained in the Old Testament and the New Testament. That message is that salvation comes by way of faith in God and the teachings and ministry of Jesus Christ our Lord (Emmanuel: "God with Us").

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.